This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Spaceflight List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry List‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners

Should we label SN9 as a full failure (or partial failure)? Made it less far than SN8, and landing had a much larger importance in this flight. NEXTspaceflight, a source I use often, list it as such [1] N828335 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep it the same as SN8. Unless we separate the launch & landing outcomes, they should be combined like this. It wouldn't make much sense to have the outcomes be different for each flight, especially since they were so similar. Both SN8 & SN9 had the same flight criteria. Discords & forums are personal conjecture, not fact. SpaceX issued the same flight criteria for SN9 as they did for SN8. So if we change SN9, SN8 must be changed. I am in favor of a separate launch/Landing column, however. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe both SN8 and SN9 could be labeled as partial failure. On separating in to launch/landing, the general consensus was against, see section on this page. N828335 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets do that. Partial failure implies a higher degree of success whereas partial success implies a higher degree of failure. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. I'll leave the disputed message for a little while longer, in case anyone else wants to comment.N828335 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest a grading scale for future stuff to iron out any future issues we might have on this subject:

Outcome	Description
Success	Rocket successfully lands and is still usable for future tests
Partial success	Rocket successfully lands intact, but is damaged/otherwise unusable for future tests
Partial failure	Rocket launches successfully, but fails to land successfully
Failure	Rocket fails to launch successfully/fails mid-flight

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I can agree with this, at least for suborbital tests. N828335 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above, good balance of "no it didn't land" and "But completed a lot of what is went out to do". OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As do I --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this but would like to give an opposing view. Is it possible that the gradient is becoming too faceted? I mean by this gradient anything could be called a "partial failure". Even Mk1 succeeded at some of its objectives, but Mk1 was a failure because if failed to deliver on expectations. It failed to prove the design. We don't want to call SN8 a failure because it succeeded in so many new objectives. It did prove the design. But SN9 didn't do that. I agree that SN9 succeeded in providing good data, but it didn't succeed at being the first to accomplish a new test goal. I would rather say that SN9 failed, but SpaceX learns from failure, than call it something like a partial failure. JaredHWood💬 03:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, I would suggest defining the outcomes in a more general way so they can last through orbital testing as well. Following my rational above, I suggest the following:

• Success - Rocket achieves all test objectives
• Parital success - Rocket achieves novel test objectives, but not all objectives
• Failure - Rocket achieves no novel test objectives

JaredHWood💬 03:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jared.h.wood, I agree with this. I think SN9 should be characterized as a failure in light of it failing the one thing they haven't been able to do yet. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me is so, after swimmming crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Europe to North America, you approach the beach, and exhausted die on Beach....

There is No Partial Die, or you Die or Not... It is Black & White, there is no half pregnancy, or you have a baby or not and so on

Both Rockets died after crossing the Universe, the is no rest, there is no part to count history, the Things were complete destroyed, so

Outcome	Description
Success	Rocket successfully lands and is still usable for future tests
Partial success	Rocket successfully lands intact, but is damaged and repairable
Failure	Rocket, does not matter which trajectory was, was destroyed

and this is strange also "engines failed to ignite successfully"... what a weird english is this.... or engines ignite or fail..... there is no failed success, very strange your way ro communicate, simply :

"engines failed to ignite" ... basta --2.206.214.240 (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this is that Elon characterized the SN8 flight as better than expected and as a resounding success despite the botched landing. As he should; the flight basically did everything they wanted it to in terms of gathering flight data. They might not have even been planning on flying the thing a second time if it had landed successfully (Some of the other test vehicles only flew once and were then shelved). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, people give a too much half full cup of water instead a half empty cup of water to this can, to a thing never will works, ie, too much positive enthusiasm for a thing primitive, which does not do the half space shuttle did, neither soyuz, neither China, neither India does... etc... and no so, wont be reach the half moon track, neither ISS, neither the unbelivible Mars or other planet, no it is 1000 light years far a Millennium Falcon, or any other Star Trek Generation... Humans will never reach a moon without Hollywood ... in past, today and in close future it is a can which dissolves like Vitamin C into a cup of water... so do not understand the insistence with this vertical landing for a too heavy metal, difficult to control tiny... better go back, put some wheels and land like any other still primitive aircraft, like shuttle did, you know, enterprise, columbia, discovery etc.... kkk --2.206.214.240 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... well that rant isn't worth interacting with further. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrcraft Yt, Insertcleverphrasehere, Exoplanetaryscience, Jared.h.wood, OkayKenji, Liaiwen, and N2e:
I've tried to summarize and combine the ideas present to close this discussion, here is what I came up with.

Outcome	Description
Success	Rocket successfully lands intact with no significant damage present.
Partial success	Rocket successfully lands intact, but is damaged or otherwise unusable for future tests.
Partial failure	Rocket fails somewhere during the test, but major new test objectives are achieved.
Failure	Rocket fails at some point during the test, completing no new test objectives.

Please respond here with Support, Oppose, or Neutral and any additional comments to this classification, so we can come to a consensus. Also say where SN9 should fall on this. N828335 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I no longer support this myself after comments from N2e and Jared.h.wood. It is not the editor's decision, we should instead just list what happened, listing "Destroyed" rather than "Failure." I have left the rest as "Successful" for now, if you have a better terminology please comment. N828335 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Support implementing this. Although I would keep SN9 as partial failure because SpaceX did solve the fuel pressure issue that caused SN8 to fail, which was a new test objective in SN9. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the table. I've thought about this and now I think I could consider SN9 to be a failure. Given that SN8 did ignite both engines albeit the engines failed (because of that pressure issue - which they solved). SN9 'failed' because they didn't successfully ignite the second engine. I don't consider solving an issue from the previous flight but then experiencing a new issue a "new test objective". Though if the consensus is that SN9 is a partial failure like SN8 I will support it. It might be good to get the opinion of an un-involved editor as well. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. While I agree with the distinction methodology between partial failure and failure, I don't really see a difference between partial failure and partial success (both of which mean essentially the same, it's just glass half-full or half-empty), Just call them both partial success and be done with it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 07:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE -- I oppose doing this kind of tea leaf grading on test flights of prototype test articles which are (quite naturally) run as proprietary tests by private companies. Why? The companies simply don't make public what the test objectives are of any test. We have no reliable basis to be lumping an entire complex development test as even success or failure, let alone splitting hairs on whether it is a success, partial success, partial failure, or failure. Doing so is original research and/or WP:SYNTHESIS, neither of which are appropriate in Wikipedia articles.

These are not operational flights, with some sort of single success criteria (the goods transported to the destination were either delivered or were not). Development engineering, especially the iterative/incremental development engineering that SpaceX does, simply does not work that way. And we just won't ever have a set of robust sources that agree, and will lead to easy consensus on the part of a set of Wikipedia editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: I completely agree that there is really no reliable basis for determining what are the test objectives and classifying using this system. What should we do instead? Could we just put SN8/SN9 be to use {{failure|Destroyed}} rather than {{failure}}? That way, instead of making an objective determination of the success of the test, we just list what happened. Thanks for your input - N828335 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@N828335: I like this idea. I support replacing success/failure with retired/destroyed. JaredHWood💬 18:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jared.h.wood: I edited it for SN8 and SN9. Not sure what to do for previous tests. I left it as successful for now, I don't feel like "Retired" is the right word, given that they could fly again, like with Starhopper. N828335 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@N828335: Now that I see it. I like it even better. Let's leave the word "Success" and add sources that say the test were successful. I'm sure we can find those. I was actually nodding my head in approval when I saw your latest changes. JaredHWood💬 19:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I fear that this entire discussion is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I believe that as editors we should not be interpreting sources to decide if the tests were definitive successes for failures. We should be recording what the sources say. If the sources do not declare a standard test outcome, neither should we. I think this is why the issue is difficult for us. We should describe the known objectives and the known outcomes and forgo declaring success/failure. JaredHWood💬 18:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I've reached based on the comments above. I've already changed it in the template. If no one has significant objections we can leave it.

• If the vehicle landed in one piece and appeared successful, list it as such. However, add reliable references that say the test was successful.
• If the vehicle did not land or was otherwise destroyed, use {{No|Destroyed}}. Also add references in this case.
• In the future, if a vehicle is not destroyed, but the test has flaw somewhere elsewhere, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

N828335 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to try & drag this on more, but we could alleviate most of the debate if we had a separate launch and landing column. Make the delineation the flight apogee. If it fly's as expected through apogee, but fails like SN8/9, it would be labeled as a successful launch and a failed landing. This is exactly what we do on the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and List of Electron launches pages.

Seems like you already added this to the other section on it. We can continue discussion there. N828335 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graph partial categories

Above reaches conclusion not to use partial in table. But what about the graphs. Should we use partial there and if so what does it mean? If we have graph for landing, should this mean the launch graph should avoid using the landing as determinant of success? crandles (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the consensus above should probably also apply to the graphs. I removed "partial" and "failure" and just replaced it with "destroyed" for now. There were too many categories created anyways. At the same time, this would essentially makes the outcome and landing graphs identical for the time being, just because a prototype has never been destroyed anywhere else. N828335 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed doesn't give a good view of SN8 outstanding success. I did wonder about trying to say the purpose of SN8 test was mainly about testing ascent and decent and should be shown as a launch success but landing failure. Even if we had good refs for that we may well not know detailed purpose of future tests so I struggle to justify that. Instead I am now wondering whether we can split the flights into launch, ascent, decent and landing so 4 columns for each year. Not sure if that can be done clearly but may tell a fuller story. crandles (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to keep discussion on talk page a little longer. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_Starship_flights is quite clear that attempting to characterise in way that isn't clear in the reference is original research so we cannot use partial failure or partial success. C-randles (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some debate on what to say for SN10’s outcome. I would argue that it is a success, because the section is listed as “test flight,” and this was after the test flight and should not be considered. N828335 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It explored because of the test.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the talk page above us, we already sort of figured this out.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculative to say that the explosion occurred due to the test. I don’t think we have any official confirmation on the cause.N828335 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is also speculative to say that it didn't.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a old joke among pilots: "A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is one where you can reuse the airplane." Results of a test program are not simply success or failure. Classifying the results that way is rather judgemental and highly dependent on perspective. SpaceX may consider the test a success for advancing to the next step and other data they got. Others may be impatient with explosions, Perhaps a more fact-oriented description would be more appropriate, e.g. Destroyed in Flight, Destroyed on Landing, Destroyed After Landing, Recovered. Peterstev (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From an operations point of view a spacecraft that explodes 10 minutes after landing is not better than a spacecraft that explodes on impact. It's even worse, because a delayed explosion might endanger ground crews. But the article is about flights, not recovery. --mfb (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The landing (probably the legs) was clearly off-nominal, so I think what we have right now works well. It was not an issue with recovery. Hopefully we get more information from SpaceX. N828335 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to wait for more details, but I think "Damaged during landing" might be the best idea. Add a note to say that this damage led to the explosion. N828335 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arabsat-6A landing back in 2019 was classified as a landing success, despite the booster being destroyed during recovery operations. I would vote for success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osunpokeh (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I would like to make the distinction that it was "Damaged on landing" rather than "destroyed after landing." If it landed perfectly, but then was destroyed by some external factor, then it should be listed as success. However, this is not the case with SN10. Something was clearly off-nominal during the landing phase. Here's roughly what I would put:

Damaged on landing[i][1]

N828335 (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support than the idea of damaged on landing. There were several Falcon 9 landings that resulted in damage to the booster, sometimes being able to fly again, sometimes not. Just so much easier to say it successfully landed and then make a clear note that it blew up minutes later. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that also, either way. I just don't like what we have now. It does not make it very clear, it could have been destroyed after landing for something completely unrelated to the landing itself. SN5/6 were both destroyed after landing (eventually). N828335 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, the majority of commenters here (4/5) seem to be OK with leaving it as a success, with a note explaining the destruction. Given that it has been a while without additional comments, I am going to change it to that now, but feel free to continue discussion. If we want to split it into launch/landing, we should start another section to discuss that. Thanks, N828335 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with success. There is a big difference with Arabsat where problem was ocean being too rough and it fell overboard so almost certainly little or nothing to do with the landing and here where it seems likely that landing bounce damaged rocket creating a methane leak. This sort of damage is different from a leg damage issue whether that is just crush core use or a replacement leg needed but rocket reusable. Without a good source for this I am not sure what we should do but success isn't right unless it just means some progress made (in which case SN8 is also success). 'Destroyed after landing' til we get a good source seems better to me. crandles (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think "Destroyed after landing" makes it clear enough that the issue was caused by the flight itself, not an external factor (like with Arabsat). I agree that Success is probably not the best either. I've also suggested "damaged on landing," but maybe this does not completely show the level of damage present. I guess maybe "Destroyed during recovery?" I think "after landing" is too vague, SN5/6 were also destroyed after landing. N828335 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of our Wiki-editor speculations and opinions don't matter. SpaceX said it was a successful test. Like all engineering tests on complex systems with many new things being tested, not every micro piece-part of the engineering test has to go any certain way for it to be successful. The engineers are interating on design, and gathering truly massive amounts of data, and readying the next Starship which will have some differences to test in the next test. There is no customer here, and therefore no objective to measure it against to be "successful" or "unsuccessful." That's just humans wanting to keep score.

Just say what happened, with good sources. And leave it at that. The entire "Outcome" column should not even be there, as that requires synthesis for editors to draw some conclusion. N2e (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​​I agree, removing the entire column might be the best interest. Even the tests currently labeled as successful are kind of vague. Instead of removing it all together, we could replace it with a 1-3 word summary of what happened instead of "Success"/"Failure." For the first 5 tests, say "Recovered," and SN8/9 say "Destroyed on landing" and SN10 say "Destroyed during recovery." This could remove all the objectivity from the column, while still giving a brief overview of the test for someone skimming the article. These are engineering tests, so there really isn't an objective goal like an orbital spaceflight with payload. N828335 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At what point are they no longer test flights? Obviously all of these have been, but what's the cutoff? An 80km flight (U.S. space definition), 100km flight (F.A.I. definition) or an orbital launch attempt? Those will use the S/P/F system used everywhere else and will necessitate separate launch/landing columns. People's bias WP:POV seems reluctant to classify anything as but 100% successful. This is confirmation bias and can't be used to make an objective statement. Every other launch vehicle, including reusable and test vehicles use that for their respective lists (and reusable endoatmospheric suborbital rockets). This isn't difficult. Kicking the problem down the line won't solve the issue. We'll be back here after SN11 doing the same thing. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't difficult to suggest anything up to and probably including first orbital flight is a test flight. After that it is operational (meaning can be booked unless that is clearly false) even if there are still tests to be done like orbital refueling. If first orbital flight has a paying customer that is not a related party that might just be paying a token amount then that flight might be considered operational but a few starlinks seems a more likely payload. To me, "Destroyed during recovery" is too suggestive that it had nothing to do with the landing. "Destroyed after landing" is vague which basically is the situation until we get a good ref as to whether the landing caused it or not. crandles (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, I will switch it back to "Destroyed after landing" until further info. I would say that the first orbital attempt should be considered differently, because even if they are "tests," they will have a very concrete determinant of success: reaching orbit. But obviously we can discuss this more down the road. N828335 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the landing could possibly be classified as a plain "success", especially not compared to what we hope a full success will eventually look like. I might propose the threshold would be if the vehicle survives to the point that it has a chance to finish "safing". If this was a crewed vehicle--which is the aim--the crew would not have survived without activation of something like a Launch Escape System, and as noted above, any ground crew would have been endangered. The comparison with a Falcon 9 tipping over in the high seas is not apt because the failure there was not the vehicle itself, it was external forces, and arguably even of the droneship; SN10 operated in good environmental conditions and landed on an undamaged concrete pad. Especially once there is a stream of 10 full successes, it will look particularly dishonest to list it as a green success in a summary view. I expect it'll be changed later if not now, because of our biases of wanting a success. - Zerim (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would label it as a partial success (it completes the task, but with a major issue present). Elon Musk stated that something was off and touchdown velocity was too high. N828335 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree it isn't success esp now we have Thrust was low despite being commanded high for reasons unknown at present, hence hard touchdown. We’ve never seen this before. Next time, min two engines all the way to the ground & restart engine 3 if engine 1 or 2 have issues. and This was way past leg loads. They got squashed hard. crandles (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added tweet and changed back to partial failure - but wonder if failure is more appropriate than partial failure or maybe hard landing causing destruction 7 minutes later. crandles (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Directly from SpaceX "SN10’s Raptor engines reignited as the vehicle performed the landing flip maneuver immediately before successfully touching down on the landing pad!" Unless you would like to contradict SpaceX (which sets the precedent for that in the future) Then It needs to be how SpaceX classifies it. Are we going to change the Arabsat-6A booster because it tipped over after.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Falcon 9 landing from the launch of BulgariaSat-1? Are we going to change that too? It's a landing column, not a landing plus X amount of time after column.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX video said successful but that video ended before the rocket blew up. We have more info now. Arabsat fell overboard and the sea state was rough so the implication is that if the sea had calmed down the rocket would have been fine. This is completely different from the situation where Musk is admitting the landing was way too hard. If the explosion was due to some external factor after landing then it is appropriate to say the landing was a success. But here we have evidence that landing was way too hard and in absence of suggestion that that it is down to some other factor after landing, the assumption has to be that the way too hard larding caused the destruction. Do I think there was progress and this should be emphasised? yes, but that seems rejected in favour of your table, and I am ok with that. For your table the question is: Was the landing a success? and the answer is: No it was a failure - the landing caused the destruction of the rocket so how is that anything other than a failure? This doesn't require change to Arabsat. (Incidentally, after BulgariaSat-1, B1029 was retired why was that? I forget and the ref for retired doesn't seem helpful.) crandles (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quote from the SpaceX press release hours after it landed, not before. "the assumption has to be" This is a logical fallacy. We don't know that that the harder landing caused that. There was fire on the vehicle before touchdown. We don't know that the harder landing caused the vehicle to blow up. Musk stated that (the engine throttling problem was before touchdown) there was an issue before it touched down, to unless we know, we shouldn't be using our own assumptions.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the hesitancy around using our own assumptions and research here, and in an attempt to determine if there is a consensus within media, I came across this article about SN9 and before. It mentions the Challenger disaster, and I was reintroduced to the concluding sentence of Richard Feynman's famous Appendix for the Rogers Commission: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." I would lean away from the precedence of taking SpaceX PR for its word, even if I think it was 75% a success. But, more objectively, almost all of the SN10 news titles mention both that it landed and exploded, so I think that qualification is essential for the summarization on Wikipedia. Thanks. Zerim (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fire on vehicle is within the landing definition from apogee to touchdown. Nobody is suggesting a cause of explosion originates after touchdown but there are adequate refs for clearly admitted problem(s) before touchdown making landing failure overwhelmingly favourite (few things are completely certain - maybe some maths proofs). Claiming successful landing in such circumstances would be pure PR and/or fandom. crandles (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah gonna have ti disagree, we have seen many issues on Falcon 9's before touchdown that succeeded and one of them falling over. It was decided they would be successful even though one fell over, I don't see why it should go against Wikipedia consistency policy and break consensuses already made months ago.-AndrewRG10 (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to name some, KoreaSat caught fire after landing and never flew again. BulgariaSat landed on one leg, Iridium-2 and Starlink L-3 crushed the landing legs due to hard landing. ArabSat 6A fell over not long after landing. They are all successes because they all landed, what happens after landing is irrelevant. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to this article lately in regards to this matter. My advice is to engage in consensus building and not to just change the article with what you think is right. A User has already been blocked and many more will follow if users continue with disruptive editing. E.Wright1852 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some seem convinced it is success, some convinced it is failure. Isn't the appropriate thing to do to explain the controversy. Most secondary sources are saying it exploded as well as indicating it landed intact. Shouldn't we be doing that? The note which did say SpaceX initially claimed it a success but later admitted problems with engine thrust seemed a useful explain the controversy solution. Arabsat 6A fell overboard in rough seas clearly external problem after landing. Crushed legs are a small replaceable part, BulgariaSat was a second flight of a FT version which never flew more than twice so it was recovered for any inspections SpaceX wanted to do, Iridium-2 flew again with Iridium-4, Starlink-3 was 3rd flight of B1051 which has now flown 9 times, these are all landing successes. KoreaSat booster B1042 only flew once and there are a couple of later FT B4 boosters that flew twice but booster was available for inspection and we don't know if it could have been refurbished and flown again because SpaceX moved on to only using B5 boosters. SN10 had admitted issues before touchdown, lots of people viewed video of 8 minutes after landing and none of them are suggested an external cause from after landing. I think we should stick at this version [2]. crandles (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people will agree that the test was successful as Spacex gathered vital data to allow them to make adjustments where necessary. However seeing that SN10 Exploded minutes after landing something was clearly wrong and did not go as planned. My Opinion is that the test flight of SN10 was a success but the landing was a failure. As to different sources saying different things, this should clearly be mentioned in the article that there is no confirmed cause of the explosion. E.Wright1852 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 I think that it should be put as Partial Failure. Unfortunately, people keep changing it to failure, and I have to revert it. SN10 landed succesfully, but 2 of the landing legs broke. But it did not explode on landing like SN8 and SN9. SN10 should have some diffrence than the failure put for SN8 and SN9.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't edit based on what "we think" or our opinion. You are writing with a bias and that is against Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. There is a note link next to the outcome. The consensus here has been that it was a landing failure. Multiple things went wrong, which caused the vehicle to explode. Stop changing what was decided on without discussing it. "But it did not explode on landing like SN8 and SN9." Yes it did. there were also issues with the legs, with the tanks, engines, pressurization system and tank structure aswell as a methane leak. This caused the vehicle to explode. The landing was a failure, it did not go as planned and the vehicle exploded. Consensus has formed, and we have used that to inform the article. Stop forcing edits that are disruptive and go agaist Wikipedias NPOV requierment. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info: This has gone to the DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of Starship Flights. --mfb (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DRN Volunteer Note I will be closing the DRN today because- all of this is WP:OR. You cannot include information based on your judgement or interpretation of data. That is original research. We are an encyclopedia. So until you have reliable sources that literally call the launch a success or failure- you cannot include it in the article. THats not a volunteer opinion- that is WP policy. I'm sure a source exists- and once found, will clear up this entire problem. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning of the talk page, it says to write style="background:#FFC7C7;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-no"|Destroyed when it is destroyed. We should now obey this rule. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added Starship SN15 and Super-Heavy BN2 to the list. It is not confirmed which pads SN15 and BN2 are going on, and it is unsure if BN2 will fly after SN15. There is also prototypes SN16-20 which may fly before BN2. I will remove the added content and making sure no new prototypes are added to the list unless a prototype is on a pad and is confirmed for a flight. FinTGM (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Content removed. FinTGM (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FinTGM, BN2 has 8 raptor mounts, which implies it will fly. BN1 has 2. Also, SpaceX wants to have at least one Booster fly without Starship before the SN20 and BN3 orbital test flight. Also, I put the SN15 and BN2 pad(s) as TBA. Because of this, I have put SN15 and BN2 back. If you want to change it back, please talk to me first.Separated the IP edit for readability - mfb

I suggest adding SN15 and BN2 to the table. User: El Roih keeps removing them. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know anything about their planned flights apart from "they are planned to do flights at some point". What you added is more speculation than actual information. We can add them back once we have more specific information. BN2 should probably get its own table. The upper stage is called Starship, the combination is called Starship, but Super Heavy alone is not Starship. --mfb (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Super Heavy should get separate table. I suggest we shouldn't add prototype/table until it is at least either confirmed as intended to be next flight or being rolled out to launch pad. crandles (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by 64.121.103.144 to comment on this discussion. First, I would like to note it was not me (not this time) who removed SN15 and BN2. But I do not disagree with removing them. Honestly, SpaceX's launch manifest (especially in the case of Starship) is so uncertain, that I would actually recommend (I know that this recommendation will not be followed) that launches should be listed in the flight lists and statistics only after they have actually launched. Writing anything before this point is bound to be very speclative. El Roih.

Usually we have the planned launch date a few days in advance, and rough estimates might be available earlier. Add the altitude and other comments (main goals, main changes relative to the previous flight, ... and we have a valid entry. --mfb (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about a prototype can get added on the list when it is on a launch pad and is confirmed for a flight. Actual information is a win over speculations.FinTGM (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, he has a huge emotional investment in the project. Could his judgment be tainted by rose-colored glasses? Just sayin'. G'nychall. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk is clearly biased on this topic. We should prefear thrid party references. 10:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless you want to determine success/failure by what Mr Musk declares, with a footnote? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

64.121.103.144 has asked that they be removed. Still needed? Not needed? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Pending changes are still needed due to unexplained content removal and disruptive editing. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the conclusion to be weird in a couple of ways. The conclusion says

The dispute is about original research. The simple answer is this- if a source does not currently exist which clearly calls the launch a success or failure- any analysis of the data is original research and does not belong on WP at all. Also- social media (IE-twitter) is not a WP:RS and if you are going to use the companies own webpage- make sure you are linking directly to the page on that website that is clearly saying "This launch was a success" or "This launch was a failure" do not just link to the homepage and make people hunt to find the statement themselves. Thanks. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

1. We reached the conclusion that we couldn't use graded outcomes like "partial failure" for the flight because it is original research. Above conclusion may appear to take this further, however we are not calling the test flight a success or failure we are saying there is a landing failure which we have defined as from apogee to landing. So we could conclude this is irrelevant. Requiring an exact word 'success' or 'failure' in the ref is in my opinion silly. There are lots of possible secondary refs and they practically all prominently say it exploded. SN11 exploded mid air, it obviously didn't land successfully and we don't need the exact "failure" word in the ref to call it that.

2. Quoting some random person on twitter obviously is not acceptable. However Elon Musk is spaceX CEO not a random person and his twitter account is an official communication channel for Tesla and SpaceX. He is clearly person in best position to provide reliable information. There is a cite tweet format so it obviously can be used in some circumstances and I believe this is clearly the case with Elon Musk's tweets for this article. crandles (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Landing Outcome column should be all together removed. Maybe it could be replaced by whether it exploded or not?

64.121.103.144 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your replies or leave an empty line (I added one now), otherwise your comment is put in the same line as the preceding comment which makes reading the discussion difficult.

I'm puzzled by the closure as well. If a source calls a flight "flawless", do we need to use that word now? Do we populate the tables with 5 synonyms for "success" and "failure", or even whole sentences? Clearly not. And Musk's tweets are a reliable source for the view of SpaceX. Primary and not independent of course, but perfectly fine to write what SpaceX says/plans. --mfb (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is disruptive editing happening again in regards to this discussion. Please stop. If you are changing the article to uphold a consensus, change it for that and that only. Disregarding talk page discussions are likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing. E.Wright1852 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any sources to justify keeping either the launch outcome or the landing outcome columns? The closing statement of the dispute resolution entry applies to both columns, so we need sources for both if they are to be kept. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears not. No one is finding/providing new sources in this Talk section that were not previously used. N2e (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution closure found, just as numerous editors have previously said on this Talk page, that the entire attempt to reduce a complex test flight of many objectives to a single word is simply original research.

The dispute is about original research. The simple answer is this- if a source does not currently exist which clearly calls the launch a success or failure- any analysis of the data is original research and does not belong on WP at all.

We don't have a number of sources that agree on either "success" or "failure" with most of these test flights. Therefore, we should simply not have those two columns in the table that summarizes the test flights: Launch outcome and Landing outcome.
Instead, it's perfectly acceptable to have a subsection of the article that explicates, in prose, each test flight, from start to finish and even events on the pad before or after, of course with all statements well sourced. N2e (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise you have just described the Starship development history article which includes the table from here. We don't want to redo that here we want to do a table for use there and in SpaceX Starship. So we still have to decide what to put in the table. We could consider a 'Quick summary' column with 3 to 5 word entries like "Launched and landed", "Exploded on hard landing", "Flip failed exploded on impact", "Landed intact but soon exploded", "Exploded during landing flip". We might then need to consider whether we can colour code these. There are alternatives: e.g. we could stick to the view we are not calling the test a success or failure we are referring to part of the flight for which there is adequate description in several sources. I would suggest that to somewhat go against the dispute resolution we would need a clear consensus and so far that is looking unlikely. C-randles (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Starship development history has the (sourced) prose to describe each test flight and test article, and also includes the table in this article, that is making a really great argument that this article need not exist at present. Recreate this article when operational flights are flying, ones flying real and objective stuff to orbit. These test articles don't need so many different Wikipedia articles about them. They are just integrated system test platforms that SpaceX treats like, wait for it, integrated test platforms. N2e (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For info if you don't know/remember: This used to be a template for use in both articles,Template:Starship_flights/suborbital but it was decided (perhaps in rather rushed manner) it was better as an article. We could reverse that if the majority view has changed since mid Feb 2021 see Template_talk:Starship_flights/suborbital. It is obviously better to have one table to edit once rather than two to edit twice. An alternate way to reduce the article count would be to just put the table in Starship development history and transclude it into SpaceX Starship. Perhaps there is some other way to reorganise SpaceX Starship and Starship development history articles but if you want to do that I think you would need to take it to those articles talk pages. C-randles (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution conclusion : one week on

Nearly a week on after the dispute resolution process closed, it seems to me that we have a strong consensus emerging. Moreover, we've had no editors provide new sources that would provide clear grading of the launch outcome and landing outcomes by flight.

Here is a summary of what we see on just the narrow issue of retention of the success/failure columns:

• "if a source does not currently exist which clearly calls the launch a success or failure- any analysis of the data is original research and does not belong on WP at all. Nightenbelle
• "we need sources for both [outcome columns] if they are to be kept." --Joshua Issac
• "we should simply not have those two [outcome] columns in the table that summarizes the test flights N2e
• "the Landing Outcome column should be all together removed. 64.121.103.144
• "we couldn't use graded outcomes like "partial failure" for the flight because it is original research" crandles

I have not seen any editor provide an argument and rationale for retaining these succinct outcome columns in this article.

If I've quoted your positions incorrectly, or if anyone has new sources to add, then fix it, or add the sources. But if not, then any editor is free to remove the columns in the table, and we can just describe each flight with the verifiable information that is well sourced, in accordance with wiki policy and guidelines. N2e (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After another week with no objection about the evolving consensus, I have removed the "Launch outcome" and "Landing outcome" columns, per discussion and as a result of the Dispute Resolution process. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are already citations about the outcomes in the description boxes on each prototype. I have undone your deletion. Should you oppose, you may revert my changes, but in my opinion you should just leave it. We don’t want to have two of the same references on a prototype. FinTGM (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yup, I reverted, to retain the Talk page & Dispute Resolution consensus above. I have started a new section below where you can attempt to build consensus for adding the material back to the article. N2e (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote of me is accurate, but I don't really support the above consensus. What I was sensing was a reluctance to do anything or consider if we needed to replace the columns with something else. C-randles (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Vehicle Status to the table. I have added destroyed where it exploded. Please read the top of this talk page where it says how to add it.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who edits this article should edit the draft, Draft:Starship SN11. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty well established that the subject has no independent notability and that social media posts are not reliable sources. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can make it interesting. It includes a table with the tests.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who edits this article should edit the draft, Draft:Starship SN15.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection requested on my talk page by DR. Please see Roberts comments at DRN. Unfortunately, my recommendation to seek dispute resolution had already failed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:FinTGM reverted the removal of unsourced information on the success/failure of the various test flights launches and landings. FinTGM has suggested that sources can be found, but did not add them to the article at the time.

Since that success/failure material was deleted after rather extensive consensus formation here on this Talk page, and in the Dispute Resolution process, I reverted.

I have suggested that if FinTGM wants to undo that edit where material was deleted because it had no sources, a consensus for it should first be built for that, here on this Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I insert sources stating the liftoff, landing failures and successes of the vehicles? Should I just copy the sources already in the description box and paste them onto the outcome columns? FinTGM (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are souces that it exploded. What we would need are unbiased, reliable third pary sources that the tests were failurs. After all, it were tests. The reason for tests is to garther data. If the ship explodes on landing, but SpaceX gains data from it, it was no (total) failure. Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason Gail Ackbar just gave, sources aren't really calling the test flight a success or failure and we shouldn't either. However, the sources are reporting whether it launched and landed or exploded and other such details. I don't see why we don't consider a 'Quick summary' column with 3 to 5 word entries like "Launched and landed" for Starhopper and SN5&6, "Exploded on hard landing" for SN8, "Flip failed, exploded on impact" for SN9, "Landed intact but soon exploded" for SN10, "Exploded during landing flip" for SN11. C-randles (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches Wikipedia page, and go to the “Past flights” section, you will find that most of the outcome boxes are unsourced. This is probably because most information about the outcomes are not to be mostly seen on sites such as Twitter. Go to the New Shepard Wikipedia page, and go to the “Full flight list” section. You will also see there that none of the outcomes have citations to them. You can see from both examples that the most of the citations are from the description boxes, just similar to what the Starship Flight list is like. So I just recommend the outcome boxes get inserted back in. Match the List of Starship flights page like the examples. FinTGM (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an entirly different situation. Those are mostly operational flight. They have a well defined goal of putting a payload in a specific orbit and potentially landing the first stage. Here we are talking about test flights. As said before, the goal of a test flight is to generate data. A test flight would therefor at least be a prartial success if data is generated, even if the vehicle is destroyed. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree operational flights is a different situation to test flights here because there is clear objective to get something into orbit with operational flights. New Shepard are test flights like here, so maybe discussions here mean that page could be wrong to call the test flights as "success". OTOH since they are landing and re-flying same booster and capsule and there is talk of crew on their next test flight, then there seems plenty more reason to call the New Shepard test flights successes. C-randles (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit, IP editor 64.121.103.144 made a significant change to the article by adding a new column to the table called "Vehicle status" and assigned a value and a color to each of the test flights to date. It was a good faith Bold edit. But let's discuss it here under WP:BRD.

This column may or may not be a good idea; I'm actually agnostic on it at this time. But given the quite recent and rather long-term and multi-editor discussion to remove other columns for which we were short reliable sources, and then became vehicles for endless editor arguments on variou person's views of how the tea leaves ought to be graded, I just think is is best for the idea of such a new column to be Discussed first. Thus the BRD.

With clear sources on "vehicle retired" or "vehicle destroyed" or "vehicle ...", I can personally see such a column possibly surviving, and could possibly add value to the table, and thus the article. What do others think?

I'm less certain about the liklihood of getting editor consensus on the idea of how to color the various boxes. Is "retired" green? or should it be red? Or should it be grey? How would we know? N2e (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The artcile is about the flights, not the vehicles. So I see no reason to include the final state of the cehicle here. It should be (and is) included in the List at Starship_development_history#Starship_and_Super_Heavy Gial Ackbar (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gial Ackbar again. Vehicle status shouldn't appear in the Starship_development_history article twice. I keep adding this comment in different discussion and not getting any discussion so not sure if it is disliked: Sources aren't really calling the test flight a success or failure and we shouldn't either. However, the sources are reporting whether it launched and landed or exploded and other such details. I don't see why we don't consider a 'Quick summary' column with 3 to 5 word entries like "Launched and landed" for Starhopper and SN5&6, "Exploded on hard landing" for SN8, "Flip failed, exploded on impact" for SN9, "Landed intact but soon exploded" for SN10, "Exploded during landing flip" for SN11. This is about the flights not about status of vehicles. I am less sure about whether colouring them is suitable and permissible, perhaps we shouldn't as that amounts to calling them success/failure again. C-randles (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to be a replacement for Launch/Landing Outcome that used to be there. Maybe we could figure out what a new column should be named, because we need to show somehow that SN8-11 were destroyed in the table itself. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a consensus is beginning to form here that such information about the ship, not the test flight, would be more properly covered in the Starship_development_history article; which it already is. This is merely a table of each test flight, and not a summary of the status of the Starships, for the reasons explained by C-randles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our Date for the launch of SN15 currently cites a source for "No Earlier Than (NET) April 2021". Since we are already in April 2021, this does not actually provide _any_ information on when the flight will take place. As such it would be simpler to just 'TBD' or whatever placeholder is used when no information is available. Lklundin (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it does convey information, as it implies that it could launch as early as this month. N828335 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afte SN10 "exploded eight minutes after landing", someone place ^{[undue weight? – discuss]} with hidden note saying "is accurate but overemphasizes the post-flight test events 'cause those make news; SpaceX accomplished a rather large number of test flight objectives, ostensibly most of them, prior to the hard landing. Wikipedia descriptions should not lean to a WP:POV". I disagree. The sources are all prominently saying it exploded or something similar. Hiding this would be pushing a POV, including it is necessary. I suggest this should be removed. C-randles (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we can't leave it out. We could add more about achieved test objectives before, but on the other hand the landing was the main objective that had not been demonstrated by SN8/9. N2e what do you think? --mfb (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can't be left out. But the text is simply missing even what SpaceX has said repeatedly, on the webcast and some news outlets have written about, what happened in the 6+ minutes of genuine flight testing that occurred before the flip and attempt at a landing. That's all. The prose should simply be balanced about the whole test flight, not just the part humans love to focus on, and media loves to report. (i.e., "if it bleedsexplodes, it leads." N2e (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The flight was successful until the planned landing maneuver"? We can add the same sentence to SN9 by the way. --mfb (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that SpaceX had been started to refer the Boca Chica's launch site as Starbase, Texas. But what I see from current revision, any flight that take place before SN11 (when the commentator refer the site as Starbase) or before SN10 (Musk's first reference for Starbase TX on his tweet) is listed as Starbase too. Since Starbase is "not exist" prior to at least SN10, would it be possible to just write "Boca Chica Launch Site" for flight prior to SN10 (and add some explanation on SN11 about the naming change to Starbase)? Thanks. FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is how it was a few days ago, as Starbase first came into the table. I'll take a look. N2e (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment everything should be left as Boca Chica. Starbase is not yet officially created, and is only used casually by SpaceX and others. However, I think we should keep it consistent throughout the table, as the site listed should be the current name, not the name at the time (In the future, when Starbase is commonplace, Boca Chica would create confusion that it was actually from a different location). N828335 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. Those changes were made by User:BM6 on 16 April. It is of course incorrect to call anything "Starbase" before SpaceX began referring to the place as Starbase. But it is too late to do a simple "Undo", as intervening edits make that impossible. Someone will need to manually back out the incorrect information. N2e (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starbase doesn't exist yet per Boca_Chica_(Texas)#"Starbase",_Texas just a casual enquiry so far. So I think we are better not including it in an address looking format in any table row, and instead having a note in the table header. Such as in this version [3]. C-randles (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Until the naming is official, it's better to be written as current revision. Thanks for the discussions! FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]